TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court restores Rent Controller's eviction order, citing landlord's genuine need and social customs. Prompt resolution emphasized.</h1> The High Court reversed the appellate authority's decision and restored the Rent Controller's order of eviction. Emphasizing the landlord's bona fide ... - Issues Involved:1. Subletting of a part of the building2. Whether Sundar Das left the building more than four months ago and its effect3. Nuisance caused by the respondents4. Inclusion of Chaubara in the tenancy premises5. Bona fide requirement of the building for personal occupation by the petitioners6. Impairment of the value and utility of the building by the respondentsIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Subletting of a Part of the Building:The Rent Controller found against the petitioner on the issue of subletting. There was no sufficient evidence to prove that the respondents had sublet a part of the building.2. Whether Sundar Das Left the Building More than Four Months Ago and Its Effect:It was conceded that Sundar Das had vacated the premises long ago, and Kishan Chand was in possession as a tenant. This issue did not significantly impact the outcome of the case.3. Nuisance Caused by the Respondents:Initially, the Rent Controller decided this issue in favor of the petitioners, leading to an ejectment order. However, upon appeal, the District Judge acting as the appellate authority reversed this decision, dismissing the landlords' petition for ejectment. The decision on this issue was later challenged but not conclusively resolved in the revision.4. Inclusion of Chaubara in the Tenancy Premises:The Rent Controller held that the Chaubara did not constitute a part of the tenancy premises. This finding was not significantly contested or altered in subsequent proceedings.5. Bona Fide Requirement of the Building for Personal Occupation by the Petitioners:This issue became central after the Full Bench decision in Sant Ram Des Raj overruled the earlier Division Bench decision. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority both reported that the petitioners did not require the premises bona fide for their personal occupation. However, this conclusion was challenged by the petitioners, who argued that the authorities had approached the question from an erroneous point of view and ignored important factors. The High Court emphasized that the requirement of the landlord should be assessed based on the landlord's needs, not the Controller's or appellate authority's perspective. The Court also noted that social customs and the landlord's genuine intentions should be considered. Ultimately, the High Court disagreed with the lower authorities' findings and restored the order of eviction.6. Impairment of the Value and Utility of the Building by the Respondents:This issue was not pressed during the proceedings and did not play a significant role in the judgment.Conclusion:The High Court reversed the appellate authority's decision and restored the Rent Controller's initial order of eviction. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the landlord's bona fide requirements and genuine intentions, including social customs and family needs. The judgment also highlighted the need for prompt resolution of such cases to prevent frustration among suitors. The occupant was given three months to vacate the premises.Final Orders:- Revision allowed.- The occupant is given three months to vacate the premises.- Parties to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
